[First Published in The GP&P,
12/15/87. Scanned, edited, and expanded for this issue. RWC]

Before beginning to explore this question, let this editor set forth
a positive declaration of his personal convictions on the matter of church perpetuity.

1. This editor believes that during his personal ministry our Lord
established a local, visible church.

2. This editor believes that Christ gave to that church and its
successors the infallible promise of a perpetual existence. "Upon this rock I will
build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it" (Mat. 16:18).

3. This editor holds that the promise of Jesus has not failed and
that the gates of hell have not prevailed. Therefore, he can firmly declare that there has
never been a time in history since the origin of that first local, visible congregation
when there has not been a true New Testament Church in existence.

4. It is also the conviction of this editor that it may be wise,
expedient, and well, in the present circumstances, for new churches to be formed through
arms that are extended by other Scriptural churches wherever possible and practical.

SOME PERTINENT
QUESTIONS

It would be well to define how the terms chain-link succession,
link-chain succession, and linked-chain succession are used in this article and
in the neo-Landmark doctrine. It is the position of a number of brethren and churches of
the Landmark Baptist persuasion that no church is a true church unless there was the vote
of a "mother" church to establish it. Some go so far as to charge that any
church started without the vote of a "mother" church is born out of
"spiritual adultery" committed by any who had a part in the constitution of such
a church.

I will show in this treatise that this is not the historic
Landmark or Baptist position. It is a doctrine that cannot be sustained by Baptist
History. Nor can it be sustained by Scripture. It requires the interjection and
interpolation of ones own ideas upon and into Scripture to "find"
the idea in Scripture. It is extra-biblical. It is hyper-Landmarkism. It is
neo-Landmarkism.

It would be well to consider some pertinent questions on the subject
before us .

Can the "chain-link, arm to arm," ecclesiology that
is so strongly affirmed by some brethren be unequivocally established by Scripture? After
all, the Word of God is our only, and all-sufficient rule of faith and practice!

Can any prove that the churches of the New Testament voted to extend
arms, establish and operate missions, and later, by a formal vote of the church, establish
that mission into a church?

Did Paul ever serve as "Missionary pastor" of a mission
whose prospective members held membership back at Antioch?

Did Paul, or any other missionary, ever write back to the
"mother church" to get permission to baptize any candidate?

Is there any pastor and church in this world who can shake their
chain, rattle and identify every link, church by church by church, from Jerusalem to your
church, and prove irrefutably that every link was Scriptural and that in every instance
there was a Scriptural "mother" church which extended an arm and granted letters
and authority for the establishment of every link in your chain?

If you cannot establish, prove and demonstrate that every link was
established properly, can you claim to be Scriptural if you hold to "chain-link"
successionism. Some tell me they cannot prove these things but they accept them by faith.
If you have no historical proof to support that faith, and, if you have no scripture which
establishes the necessity of "chain-link" successionism, your faith is blind
being based on no proof.

BAPTIST HISTORIANS AND
CHAIN-LINK SUCCESSIONISM

This editor has searched through his library of church histories and
was amazed at how recent the "chain-link" tradition originated. Baptist
historians and ecclesiologists are, for the most part, silent on the matter. Those who
deal with the subject usually admit that "chain-link" successionism cannot be
proven. Not one author after whom the editor read, when defining what a Scriptural church
was, gave "chain-link" succession as a requirement for a Scriptural church.
Baptist historians have never tried to prove "chain-link" successionism. When
Jesus promised his church that "the gates of hell will not prevail against it"
he was not promising that one local congregation a perpetual existence (Mat. 16:18). Nor
can one read into that promise a "chain-link" succession of Baptist churches. He
was promising that there would, in every age be churches of the kind that he established.
That historians can accept and prove. More than that none can prove!

Dr. I. K. Cross

Dr. I. K. Cross is a student and teacher of church history. He wrote
a booklet called Spotlight on Landmarkism in which he writes: "Opponents of
Landmarkism speak much of a Linked-chain' succession of churches and propose to pin
it on Landmark' Baptist churches. This is defined as meaning that every church, in
order to establish its validity, must be able to trace its individual history back to the
first church in Jerusalem. Let me say at once that I do not know of a reputable
''Landmark" Baptist student of church history who claims that every congregation must
trace its individual history link by link back to Christ and the apostles. If this were
true there would be few, if any, churches that could validate themselves. This is not the
claim of true Baptist church perpetuity" (pp. 18, 19).

Bro. Cross clearly declares that REPUTABLE students of Baptist
history do not claim "chain-link" successionism. If "chain-link"
succession is necessary for a church to be Scriptural he doubts that any could validate
themselves. This editor recently heard of one strong adherent of this type of perpetuity
who has a problem on his hands. He has discovered a missing link in his chain.

C. D. COLE

Bro. C. D. Cole was a strong and sound Baptist. He was an excellent
writer and his books will be helpful to any student of the Word of God. Of the matter of
organizing a church Bro. Cole wrote: "Baptist churches come into being today somewhat
after this manner. A group of believers in a community wish to become a church. The
members in conference will make this wish known to other churches, and these churches send
messengers to counsel them in accomplishing their desire. For the sake of order and
recognition these messengers will inquire into their beliefs, and if it is thought wise
the visitors endorse their articles of faith and recommend their constitution as an
independent church. These visiting brethren do not organize the church. Since the church
is to be self-governing it must of necessity and logically be self-constituted. And so
those wishing to become a church enter into covenant to that effect; and another church is
born. The help from the outside is for the sake of order and fellowship and is not
absolutely essential" (Definitions of Doctrine, Vol. III, C. D. Cole).

According to Bro. Cole the involvement of others than those going
into the organization of a church "is not absolutely essential." The others are
called in for the sake of "order and fellowship."

BUEL H. KAZEE

Bro. Buel H. Kazee is well-known to Sovereign Grace Baptists. His
book, The Church and The Ordinances is widely read and recommended. In this
book, Bro. Kazee writes: "To some of us, the course of history clear back to the
apostles reveals groups of people all along the way who contended 'for the faith once
delivered to the saints: whether or not our baptism is successive all the way
back, no one can prove" (p. 98). He adds: "On the other hand, no one can
prove that such succession does not exist."

A little later he writes: "One thing we can be sure of, there
has been made available enough reliable historical proof about the people called Baptists
to identify them in their beliefs with some religious groups in every age back to the
apostles."

"While history does not make out an ironclad case for
successive Baptism, it does give a good case for the perpetuity of churches which
can be identified with the kind of church specifically recognized as a church in the New
Testament" (P. 99). (Emp. in these two statements mine, RWC).

Bro. Kazee declares that "NO ONE" (Emphasis
mine, RWC) can prove that his baptism is successive all the way back to Christ. He also
says that history does not make out an iron-clad case for successive baptism. The more one
studies, the more he realizes that those who insist on "chain-link" or "arm
to arm" succession are helpless when it comes to providing proof. One wonders why
they continue to unchurch and disfranchise others who admit the same truth that Bro. Kazee
here confesses. If there is broken or uncertain links in your chain it makes no difference
if it was 25 years ago or 15OO years ago.

In another book, Why Baptists Cannot Unionize With Others,
Bro. Kazee wrote, "To be honest, then, and consistent with our claims, we originated
with John the Baptist and Jesus Christ, or we arose along with modern denominations. If
the latter, then we cannot claim to be Scriptural, for the Lord had New Testament churches
long before that. I do not mean that there has to be Apostolic succession. But I do insist
that there must be Apostolic identity in experience, doctrine and practice. No religious
group has any right to call itself a Scriptural church if it cannot identify itself with
the apostles in experience, doctrine and practice."

E. T. Hiscox

In his New Directory of Baptist Churches, Dr. Hiscox discusses and
defines what Baptists have historically held on the matter of church perpetuity. Of
perpetuity, he wrote, "This has reference, not to a continuance of official
administration . . . but to visible and corporate church life. And strange to say, some
Baptists have been courageous enough, and indiscrete enough to assert that an unbroken
succession of visible, organized congregations of believers similar to their own, and
therefore substantially like the primitive churches, can be proven to have existed from
the apostles until now."

Again Hiscox discussed the method for constituting a New Testament
Church. In his Baptist Church Directory he has a section on page 17 that is
titled, "Churches Constituted." He wrote, "When a number of
Christians, members of the same or different churches, believe that their own spiritual
improvement, or the religious welfare of the community so requires, they organize a new
church."

"This is done by uniting in mutual covenant, to sustain the
relations and obligations prescribed by the Gospel, to be governed by the laws of
Christs house, and to maintain public worship and the preaching of the Gospel.
Articles of faith are usually adopted, as also a name by which the church shall be known,
and its officers elected."

Several examples of this may be found in various Baptist histories.
Consider this account of the establishment of one such church. J. Davis was writing about
the Rehoboth Baptist Church of Wales which was formed in AD 1668. He wrote, "Several
of the members of this church went to America, and formed themselves into a church, at a
place called Montgomery, Pennsylvania." He then tells of its pastors and some of its
members. This is take from History of The Welsh Baptists, J. Davis, AD 1835,
P. 114. This book was republished by Brethren R. L. Crawford and R. E. Pound II and The
Baptist, in 1976.). There is, in this history, the accounts of the forming of
several new churches in Wales and in America. A pastor would come to an area and bring
with him some other Baptists or find some already there and would gather them and they
would form themselves into a Baptist Church.

This same method is set forth by William Cathcart. The Baptist
Encyclopedia by William Cathcart, on page 1042, gives the following account of the
constitution of the Sandy Creek Baptist Church, Guilford County, NC. This is a church
through which a number of Sovereign Grace Baptist churches trace their history. Some of
these are The Lords Baptist Church of Tacoma, Washington, The South Park Missionary
Baptist Church of Seattle, Washington, and The Bryan Station Baptist Church of Lexington,
Kentucky. According to some, the Sandy Creek Church had some connection with the Opeckon
Baptist Church of Virginia which was formed by "certain ministers of the Philadelphia
Association. The Opeckon Church was received into the Philadelphia Association with a
vague connection back to the Welsh Tract ChurchElder Abel Morgan from the Welsh
Tract Baptist Church of Delaware was present at the associational meeting in which the
Opeckon church was received. I apologize to these churches in advance if those who
consider it their commission to unchurch churches descend on you as a result of this.

Concerning the constitution of the Sandy Creek church Cathcart says,
"Mr. Stearns was ordained among the Separates; and after he had been immersed and
ordained as a Baptist minister, impressed with what seemed to him the call of God to
remove far to the West to perform a great work for his Master, he and a few of his
members, in 1754, departed from Connecticut. He stopped on the way before he reached the
home selected for him by the providence of God, Sandy Creek, Guilford Co., N. C., when, on
Nov. 22, 1755, he and his companions formed a church of sixteen members" (P. 1042).
If a linked-chain succession is essential to being a true church, Sandy Creek was not a
true church, nor are any churches who trace their lineage through Sandy Creek.

Of the Kentucky Baptists, Cathcart wrote, "The Baptists were
the pioneers of Kentucky. The first explorers of its territory were the brothers Daniel
and Squire Boone. The latter was a Baptist preacher." After recounting the visits and
settlement by several Baptist preachers, Cathcart says, "The first Baptist church
formed in Kentucky, or in the great Mississippi Valley, was constituted of 18 members by
Joseph Barnett and John Garrard, on the present site of Elizabethtown, forty miles south
of Louisville, June 18, 1781. It still bears its ancient name, Severns Valley. The
second church was constituted be the same ministers, July 4, 1781. It is called Cedar
Creek, and is located forty miles southeast from Louisville."

BENJAMIN MARCUS BOGARD LL.D.

Dr. Ben Bogard was recognized among his brethren as an outstanding
scholar and an authority on Baptist doctrine, practice, and history. His book The Baptist
Way-book is second only to the Bible with many older Baptists and with many Baptist
churches. One chapter in the above mentioned book is titled "The Way to Organize
Churches." He wrote: "The first step necessary in the organization of a new
congregation or church is for as many as three baptized disciples to agree to meet
statedly for worship, for mutual edification and united effort for the evangelism of the
world . . . The agreement to meet regularly for worship and work is commonly called a
church covenant: The word 'covenant' means agreement. This covenant should be in writing,
lest some misunderstand the terms. When this covenant has been entered into the church is
fully organized. This covenant is the organization."

"After the organization has been perfected by the members
entering into covenant with each other, the church (which is just as much a church now as
it will ever be) may elect officers . . . It is not necessary, but it is customary, for a
council of brethren from neighboring churches to be called to assist in the organization
of new churches (pp. 69-7O, 1945 ed.).

Bro. Bogard, astute Baptist scholar that he was, made no mention of
the necessity of an extended arm, a chain-link connection, or a search of historical
records to make sure there is no missing link. He did not even hold that a council or
presbytery was necessary though he felt it might to be helpful.

W. A. JARREL, D. D.

Dr. W. A. Jarrel was a very respected writer of church history. His
book, Baptist Church Perpetuity or History is almost a necessity for any
student of Baptist History.On page one of his book Jarrel quotes J. R. Graves, LL.D., and
S. H. Ford, LL.D., on the matter of church organization and the linked-chain succession
idea. He writes: "The late and lamented scholar, J. R. Graves, LL.D., wrote: Wherever
there are three or more baptized members of a regular Baptist church or churches
covenanted together to hold and teach, and are governed by the New Testament,' etc. there
is a Church of Christ, even though there was not a presbytery of ministers in a thousand
miles of them to organize them into a church. There is not the slightest need of a council
of presbyters to organize a Baptist church.'

"And the scholarly S. H. Ford, LL.D., says: Succession
among Baptists is not a linked chain of churches or ministers, uninterrupted and
traceable at this distant day . . . The true and defensible doctrine is, that baptized
believers have existed in every age since John baptized in Jordan, and have met as a
baptized congregation in covenant, and fellowship where an opportunity permitted.' To this
explanation of Church Succession by Drs. Graves and Ford, all believers in Baptist 'Church
Succession' fully agree."

On page two Dr. Jarrel adds: "Every Baptist Church being, in
organization, a church complete in itself and in no way organically connected with any
other church, such a thing as one church succeeding another, as the second link of a chain
is added to and succeeds the first, or, as one Romish or Episcopal Church succeeds
another, is utterly foreign to and incompatible with Baptist Church polity. Therefore, the
talk about every link jingling in the succession chain from the banks of the Jordan to the
present,' is ignorance or dust-throwing."

JOHN T. CHRISTIAN, A.M., D.D., LL.D.

Dr. John T. Christian was professor of Christian History in Baptist
Bible Institute, New Orleans, Louisiana, and is another well-known scholar on Baptist
history.

Of the matter of chain-link succession Bro. Christian wrote:
"The footsteps of the Baptists of the ages can more easily be traced by blood than by
baptism. It is a lineage of suffering rather than a succession of bishops; a martyrdom for
principle, rather than a dogmatic decree of councils; a golden chord of love, rather than
an iron chain of succession, which, while attempting to rattle its links back to the
apostles, has been of more service in chaining some protesting Baptists to the stake than
in proclaiming the truth of the New Testament" (A History of The Baptists,
Vol. I, p. 22).

THOMAS ARMITAGE, D.D.

Dr. Thomas Armitage, another well-known recorder of Baptist history,
wrote: "The very attempt to trace an unbroken line of persons duly baptized upon
their personal trust in Christ, or of ministers ordained by lineal descent from the
apostles, or of churches organized upon these principles, and adhering to the New
Testament in all things, is in itself an attempt to erect a bulwark of error" (History
of The Baptists, p. 2).

Robert Robinson is quoted by Dr. Armitage as having written:
"Uninterrupted succession is a specious lure, a snare set by sophistry, into which
all parties have fallen and it has happened to spiritual genealogists as it has to others
who have traced natural descents, both have woven together twigs of every kind to fill up
remote chasms. The doctrine is necessary only to such churches as regulate their
faith and practice by traditions, and for their use it was first invented" (Ibid.
p.2) (Emp. Mine, RWC).

DAVID BENEDICT

Another eminent Baptist historian is David Benedict. In his book, A
General History of the Baptist Denomination in America, he makes the following
statement concerning church succession, "I shall not attempt to trace a continuous
line of churches, as we can for a few centuries past in Europe and America. This is a kind
of succession to which we have never laid claim; and, of course, we make no effort to
prove it. We place no kind of reliance on this sort of testimony to establish the
soundness of our faith or the validity of our administrations" (A General
History of the Baptist Denomination in America, David Benedict, P. 51).

It is interesting that when this book was written in 1848 Baptists,
according to Benedict, placed no reliance on church succession in the sense of a
chain-link succession. Benedict did go on to show church perpetuity but said Baptists
placed no kind of reliance on succession. Yet, today, there are those who are so adamant
about succession that they charge with spiritual adultery any who do hold not linked-chain
succession. Here is the problem for these people. They can in no way prove their claims
from Scripture or history. They are a law unto themselves.

W. R. DOWNING

"It is one thing to prove historically that New Testament
churches have existed in every age since the apostles; it is altogether different to seek
to prove a linked succession of such churches! This is what distinguishes historic
Baptists from those who are ardent 'Landmarkers."

KENNETH GOOD

"The authenticity of a Baptist church depends, not upon its
ability to trace an unbroken line of connection to the apostles, but rather in its ability
to demonstrate that it presently possesses the doctrines, principles, and practices which
the apostles had and which are evident on the pages of the New Testament. If a church were
forced to demonstrate its 'kosher' pedigree in order to be recognized, this would require
that organized assembly to rely upon the word of man rather than the Word of God, since
the inspired genealogical tables came to the object of their existence with the birth of
Christ and were not continued beyond that."

HARLEY SCHROCK

"A true church is a church which is true to the teachings of
the Word of God. No pedigree or succession of ancestors can make a church a true
church."

WENDELL HOLMES RONE

"No amount of rattling of historical chains, worshipping of
tradition, or loud and long claims to apostolicity can take the place of a real identity
with and conformity to the will of our Lord Jesus Christ revealed in the New Testament . .
. It is only as Baptists remain faithful to Jesus Christ and His Word that they can
honestly claim apostolicity."

ROY MASON

"Baptists do not claim perpetuity upon the basis of a
successive and unbroken chain of baptisms. I do not believe that it is necessary to have a
linked succession of baptisms in order to have valid baptism. If such were the case, any
of us would be hard pressed to establish that link, unbroken, back to apostolic
times."

J. W. PORTER

"It would be impossible to establish the uninterrupted
succession of any given church through the years, even should such a church have a
continuous succession."

W. B. JOHNSON

"Now, as far as I can understand the New Testament, I see no
authority given to a church of Christ to transfer its power or authority to any other
church or body of men on earth."

A. H. STRONG

"Any number of believers, therefore, may constitute themselves
into a Christian Church, by adopting for their rule of faith and practice Christ's law as
laid down in the New Testament, and by associating themselves together, in accordance with
it, for His worship and service . . . We have no need to prove a Baptist apostolical
succession. If we can derive our doctrine and practice from the New Testament, it is all
we require."

J. L. WALLER

"We are no successionists. Our churches, ordinances, and
ministry are all derived directly from the Scriptures and, hence, had there been no
Baptist churches previous to those now in being, it would not at all affect our notions of
ecclesiastical existence."

EDWARD OVERBEY

"We believe all who will pattern their church after the New
Testament will be New Testament churches and we urge others to do this. Nothing stops them
but themselves."

A NOTE FROM THE EDITOR: I do not want
the reader to think that I endorse all that these men said. I do not believe churches are
born out of the dust. I believe there must be Scripturally baptized folks to organize a
Baptist church and one cannot receive Scriptural baptism from and unbaptized person, as
some claim. This does away with the possibility of spontaneous church origins. I quote
these men to show that these reputable Baptists did not believe there must be a vote of
one church to start another in each and every instance, as some claim.

Do Baptist churches receive their authority horizontally from one church to
the other? Or do we get our authority vertically, from Jesus Christ? Since all authority
was given to him in heaven and in earth, must not each church receive its authority from
him?

OTHERS COULD BE QUOTED

Other reputable Baptist historians could be quoted such as W. P.
Harvey, D. D., who wrote, "We do not regard it necessary to prove an unbroken visible
and historical continuity of New Testament churches from Christ and his apostles until
now" (Pillars of Orthodoxy, Ben M. Bogard, p. 423). We could quote Bro.
J. M. Holliday who declared: "We are not particularly interested in tracing an
unbroken church succession from Christ to the present day, but rather in identifying the
church to which Christ promised an eternal existence through the centuries to the present
time, by what ever name it may have been identified" (The Baptist Heritage,
p. 22). From those whom the writer has quoted it is evident that the majority of Baptist
writers have not held to chain-link successionism. Most, in fact, condemn the idea as
being born of popery, not New Testament teaching. Everyone of the writers quoted held to
Baptist church perpetuity but denied chain-link successionism and held it to be unprovable
from history or Scripture. Those who are trying to blow brethren out of the saddle oforthodoxy
by their insistence on chain-link successionism need to read these historians and
their Bibles. They need also to produce evidence that what they insist upon in
others THEY CAN PROVE IRREFUTABLY from Scripture and history for their own
baptism and their congregation. Will your church bear an investigation of its historical
links? Can you prove link-chain succession for your church for at least 400 years? 1,000
years? 1,500 years? To what church in the New Testament can you trace your lineage? Can
you show which church, if it is not the Jerusalem congregation, voted to start the church
named in the New Testament to which you trace your church?

THE CHURCHES OF THE NEW
TESTAMENT

This portion of this article must not be construed by any reader to
indicate that this editor has any questions about the validity of any aspect of those
churches to be discussed. The questions suggested will be for those who insist on a
traceable chain-link succession.

PAUL'S BAPTISM

When Paul was saved one came to him and baptized him. We know that
Paul got his baptism from "a man named Ananias." (Acts 9:12). We do not know,
however, where Ananias received his baptism. Was he baptized at Jerusalem? Was he baptized
by the disciples which were at Damascus"? Was he baptized by some of those preachers
who were scattered abroad under the persecution that followed the death of Stephen. If so,
was this a Scriptural church? Who extended the arm for this work?

THE CHURCH AT ANTIOCH

Under persecution "they that were scattered abroad" went
everywhere preaching the gospel. Some went to Antioch and there established the great
missionary church. Acts 11:19-26 Now they which were scattered abroad upon the
persecution that arose about Stephen travelled as far as Phenice, and Cyprus, and Antioch,
preaching the word to none but unto the Jews only. 20 And some of them were men of Cyprus
and Cyrene, which, when they were come to Antioch, spake unto the Grecians, preaching the
Lord Jesus. 21 And the hand of the Lord was with them: and a great number believed, and
turned unto the Lord. 22 Then tidings of these things came unto the ears of the church
which was in Jerusalem: and they sent forth Barnabas, that he should go as far as Antioch.
23 Who, when he came, and had seen the grace of God, was glad, and exhorted them all, that
with purpose of heart they would cleave unto the Lord. 24 For he was a good man, and full
of the Holy Ghost and of faith: and much people was added unto the Lord. 25 Then departed
Barnabas to Tarsus, for to seek Saul: 26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto
Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church,
and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.
There is no record of the Church at Jerusalem voting to extend the arm and establish the
work at Antioch. Was an arm extended? How long was a mission operated before brethren at
Antioch joined the church at Jerusalem so as to then be lettered out and organized into a
church? If it is absolutely essential that such an order be followed, why is no instance
of this order ever found in the all-sufficient Word of God? If a linked-chain succession
is absolutely essential to constitute a true church, surely God would have inspired one
writer of the New Testament to record such. Surely we would be able to read where the
church at Jerusalem voted to extend an are and where it voted to establish the great
missionary church at Antioch. The complete silence of Scripture on this matter is enough
to satisfy any person who is not bound by tradition that a linked-chain succession is not
essential. God spells out the essentials. He carefully showed Moses the pattern by which
he was to erect the tabernacle. Exodus 25:9 According to all that I shew thee, after
the pattern of the tabernacle, and the pattern of all the instruments thereof, even so
shall ye make it. It is my conviction that the pattern for mission work and the
constitution of churches is found in the book of Acts. There is not the slightest
suggestion in all that book that a vote of a so-called "mother" is essential to
establishing a true church of the Lord Jesus Christ.

THE CHURCH AT COLOSSE

How did the church at Colosse get its start? Where did Epaphras, its
pastor, come from? Who baptized him? Did the church have an arm from a "mother"
church? Which "mother" church?

THE CHURCH AT ROME

There is not one bit of evidence that the church at Rome had an arm
extended for its organization. The Catholics claim that Peter went to Rome and established
the church there. They have as much evidence to support their claim as anyone else
has who might venture a theory as to its origin. If chain-link succession is
essential for valid baptism and valid church organization, one would be at a terrible
disadvantage if his chain rattled back to Rome! Who started the church at Rome? Even if
you could trace your history to the church at Rome, could you prove irrefutably which
specific church voted to start that specific church?

CONCLUSION

This editor believes in the perpetuity of the Lord's churches. He
believes that the promise that "the gates of hell shall not prevail against it"
has been kept and that there has not been a day from the origin of that first church until
now that there was not a church, or churches that were contending for the faith once
delivered to the saints.

On the other hand there is not one whit of evidence that this
promise of Jesus included and required for its veracity a chain-link successionism that
some now insist upon. The burden of proof is upon those who require chain-link
successionism. When they go back into the history of one church, find what they
consider to be a missing link or a faulty link, and unchurch those folk because of that
link, they must be ready, willing, and able to prove that they can rattle a chain of pure
churches linked together through the extension of arms all the way back to the church at
Jerusalem. "Let him that is without a missing or faulty link among you cast the
first stone" at those who do have troublesome links on the way back to
Jerusalem.

It is abundantly evident that true church perpetuity can be defended
from both Scripture and history. It is equally evident that link-chain succession cannot
be defended from either Scripture or Baptist History. I have studied church history
extensively in past years. I have taught church history. Before they burned, I had a good
collection of the works of reputable Baptist historians in my library. I can tell you,
Dear Readers, those historians were not the proponents of the link-chain doctrine held by
many today. Link-chain succession has two insurmountable problems: First, church history
will not sustain the doctrine. Two, it cannot be demonstrated in Scripture. Its
proponents cannot demonstrate it in their own churchs historical heritage.
Therefore, I repeat an offer I made ten years ago.

If there is one church out there somewhere that can show a
chain-link succession that goes through churches that were scriptural in doctrine and
practice that goes all the way back to Jerusalem I will be most happy to examine the
evidence and if every link is validated church-to-church, arm-to-arm, and chain-link to
chain-link then it will be printed in the pages of this paper regardless of how many
issues it takes. Links that are four hundred years long and name no specific church
dont count. Neither do links that are associational rather than local church. I am
asking for church-link to church-link to church-link, church-vote to church-vote to
church-vote. I am sure that all our readers will be waiting expectantly for your chain to
rattle across these pages. What a glorious document that will make for your church history
libraries!)

I made the offer to publish the chain-links of any church who
could produce same several years ago but the offer goes unaccepted. At that time we were
only mailing to a little over 200. Now, we are mailing to over 2,000 plus publishing this
paper on the World Wide Web. The offer still stands. I would sincerely love to publish
such a valuable document. I have seen some alleged chains published which have
associations as links. That does not establish chain-link succession as many claim must
exist. I want a church-to-church, vote-to-vote, link. I have waited patiently for ten
years; how much longer must I wait? Will someone be forthcoming? If not, I must conclude
that such an unbroken chain cannot be proven BIBLICALLY or HISTORICALLY.

I am willing to make another offer also. If there is a church out
there that holds to the link-chain succession doctrine, and believes that any church
established without the vote of a "mother" church is born out of spiritual
adultery, and you will send me your chain of succession, I will be happy to help you
research your history to see if your lineage is pure, or if there might be an
"adulteress" in your church lineage. Are you willing to let me help you research
your links? Needless to say, this research will take some time, if any desire it be done.
I venture to say that most linked-chain successionists dont want their linkage
checked too closely. I dare say, such a research would "unchurch" every church
in America, if link-chain succession is essential to being a true New Testament Church.